On May 21, 2026, the defense in the Andrii Smyrnov case completed its opening statements, which had begun on May 12.
Counsel stressed that Smyrnov has no connection to his brother Ihor's assets, and that after three years of investigation the prosecution has still failed to present clear evidence of illicit enrichment. Smyrnov's declared income had successfully passed NACP reviews, and documents seized during searches confirm the lawful origin of his property. In particular, his car was purchased with his own funds in 2020–2022. The vehicle his wife bought from his brother is unrelated to him, and the driver's occasional assistance with its maintenance does not indicate regular use.
As for the parking spaces, their sole owner is Ihor Smyrnov, who purchased them independently at a time when Andrii Smyrnov did not even own a car. The former official merely stores a motorcycle there periodically under an official lease agreement at UAH 2,000. The motorcycle was originally purchased by lawyer Ivashchenko for himself and sold to Smyrnov in 2023 — which counsel sees as entirely unproblematic.
Regarding the apartment and land plots, the defense categorically denied Smyrnov's involvement in any unlawful acquisitions. Counsel also argued that the Office of the President and the position of Deputy Head of the Office of the President do not fall within HACC's jurisdiction — though the appellate instance has already resolved that question.
On the Biosphere construction project, the defense stated that Smyrnov invested lawful funds but later withdrew from the project due to issues with co-defendant Chernyshev, transferring his assets to Milman.
The defense also contested the episode in the indictment alleging that on Jan 15, 2022, Ihor Chernyshev offered Smyrnov $100,000 in the form of construction services in exchange for influencing the Antimonopoly Committee — specifically, to have the ruling on the winner of an Odesa Regional State Administration tender overturned — and that Smyrnov accepted the offer. The defense argues this is not borne out by the case materials: the phone examination record and correspondence between Chernyshev and Smyrnov contain no reference to a bribe. Moreover, the nature of Chernyshev's approach did not strike Smyrnov as unusual, given that consultations of this kind were routine practice for someone with his legal background.
